Constitutional Amendment

[Anouleth]

Well there are a fair number of people who, while not okay with gay marriage, are okay with civil unions because they see homosexuals being unable to get the tax breaks and benefits as unfair. They just don't want it called marriage because..... uh.... well, because. This ignores that that civil unions are inferior pretty much always, but eh. Ignorance and privilege and all that jazz. Even if they did give the same benefits, people would have to watch them like a hawk to make sure that whenever there was a change in benefits for marriage, civil unions would get the same.

Often, they are identical; for instance, in the United Kingdom they are identical under law.

[FabledTome]

The anti-gay marriage stance fits a North American Christian pushing an agenda too far like a glove. I see nothing wrong with the practice........just so long as I'm not involved! Open dissent and intolerance of it are fine, but that said, I'm not cool with amending a constitution on their behalf, WTF.

[bottlegnomes]

However, if a gay couple has a civil union, and they adopt a kid, it "technically" only belongs to one person. Meaning, if the person who adopted it were to die, the kid would be sent back to the orphanage instead of going to the second parent like it would if they were married. This is one of many MANY reasons why not having marriage equality is BS.

Well that's just stupid. Let's fuck with them more by making the kid and his remaining parent go through the whole adoption process again when they've both just lost a loved one.

Edited May 12, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[Lord Raven]

I was told that gay marraige was already illegal and this more or less just prevented general civil unions and domestic partnerships, and this restriction applies to straight people too

cutting off your nose to spite your face is cool i hear

[bottlegnomes]

I was told that gay marraige was already illegal and this more or less just prevented general civil unions and domestic partnerships, and this restriction applies to straight people too

cutting off your nose to spite your face is cool i hear

Pretty much. It just makes gay marriage more illegal and does all kinds of shit to make things harder for straight couples.

[Original Alear]

The response against that idea is that by saying that a man can only marry a woman and vice versa is that this concept is gender discrimination. In other words, you are saying a man can't marry a man BECAUSE he's a man, and a woman can't marry a woman BECAUSE she's a woman. It's the same concept as not hiring someone for a job BECAUSE of their gender even if they meet all other qualifications. For marriage, I'm pretty sure the only qualifications needed is enough money to sign the contract.

If you're under a certain age, you need a guardian's permission. Also, I saw a documentary a while ago with someone who seemed to be looking to marry someone if she could get him out of prison, and because she had already gotten pregnant with his kid while he was in prison, I kinda figured that it wasn't her lack of willingness to marry an incarcerated guy that was keeping the marriage from taking place. But I don't know for sure about that one.

And as for your argument against what you might call "equal access to marriage with opposite gender only," what you said makes sense as an argument, so thanks.

[bottlegnomes]

If you're under a certain age, you need a guardian's permission. Also, I saw a documentary a while ago with someone who seemed to be looking to marry someone if she could get him out of prison, and because she had already gotten pregnant with his kid while he was in prison, I kinda figured that it wasn't her lack of willingness to marry an incarcerated guy that was keeping the marriage from taking place. But I don't know for sure about that one.

And as for your argument against what you might call "equal access to marriage with opposite gender only," what you said makes sense as an argument, so thanks.

That's odd. A quick google search said incarcerated persons can generally get married, but it varies from state to state. So maybe they were in an unusual state.

[Original Alear]

That's odd. A quick google search said incarcerated persons can generally get married, but it varies from state to state. So maybe they were in an unusual state.

Texas. And it's also possible that what I was inferring from the situation was incorrect.

[Snapdragon]

Often, they are identical; for instance, in the United Kingdom they are identical under law.

Er, I need to qualify my statements better. I was thinking more in respects to the United States where marriage and civil unions are inherently unequal because civil unions can not be given federal benefits and are not necessarily recognized from one state to another. Also, couples in states with civil unions have to deal with more legal complications than those with gay marriage. It's nice to know that there are countries out there that have made it work. (Though, I still don't trust the United States to keep Civil Unions equal, if we did manage to get them in the first place. Way to many narrow minded jerks that want to shove their versions of morality down your throat. And I also dislike it on principle, because "Marriage" has societal and cultural meaning, not limited to religion.)

[Anouleth]

Er, I need to qualify my statements better. I was thinking more in respects to the United States where marriage and civil unions are inherently unequal because civil unions can not be given federal benefits and are not necessarily recognized from one state to another.

Gay marriages are in the same position, though. If anthing the position of gay marriage is worse.

Also, couples in states with civil unions have to deal with more legal complications than those with gay marriage.

That reflects a more liberal government rather than anything inherently wrong with civil unions.

[Kiriane]

Given my religious background, I am opposed to gay marriage. Based on the definition of marriage.

As for my political stance, I recognise that the issue is not going to go anywhere, but I'd really, really like for them to just follow the example of other places where "civil union" is merely a different term. That shows that the union is recognised by the state, without (by way of terminology) implying that it is accepted by any/all of any number of religious groups or whatever have you.

The term "marriage" has lots of, as someone up there says, societal and cultural meaning. Most people's first thought is of a heterosexual couple. You're trying to redefine the word, while at the same time pushing for gay rights...and a lot of backlash seems to be happening based on people who want to keep the "old" definition.

Do I think it might eventually lead to "civil union" being subsumed under "marriage"? Yes, perhaps: consider interracial marriages way back when they were illegal. But you aren't going to get anywhere pushing too hard for too much change too fast, not on an issue like this one where it concerns people's moral opinions rather than just a political system.

EDIT: If we're going to talk separation of church and state, we could at least try using terms that clearly separate the two. Right now a lot of the trouble is based on state appropriating a church word for something the church apparently didn't intend it for.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Kiriane

[frat_tastic]

To me, marriage is an institution of the church. It has no place in governmental affairs. I think civil unions are the way to go for both straight and gay couples as far as the government should be concerned. If the church wants marriage to be defined as one man and one woman, fine, but that shouldn't have any effect on rights and privileges granted to couples. The government should stop recognizing "marriages" and start calling them civil unions.

[Original Alear]

EDIT: If we're going to talk separation of church and state, we could at least try using terms that clearly separate the two. Right now a lot of the trouble is based on state appropriating a church word for something the church apparently didn't intend it for.

I am skeptical that marriage is a "church word," considering its origins in Latin. I dunno when the word "matrimonium" originated in latin and can't find out for sure, but it seems like it was used in pre-christian rome. And forget about its origins: in the US, heterosexual couples can be married without the sanction of any church. Even if it was, the idea that a religious institution should have control of words in that sense, and the right to "revoke" the ability of the nonreligious, or people of different religions who also use the term, is troubling.

To me, marriage is an institution of the church. It has no place in governmental affairs. I think civil unions are the way to go for both straight and gay couples as far as the government should be concerned. If the church wants marriage to be defined as one man and one woman, fine, but that shouldn't have any effect on rights and privileges granted to couples. The government should stop recognizing "marriages" and start calling them civil unions.

Actually, common law marriages, which have a historical precedent that precedes any Christian church, and are even recognized in some places in the US (some of them which you would probably consider more religious), don't necessarily have anything to do with the church. Marriage is not an institution governed by churches in many cases after the church sanctions the marriage anyway. Churches are just institutions that sanction some marriages, among other things. Finally, referring to the multiple religious institutions, some of which have no relation to one another, as "the church" makes no sense.

It is unfortunate that a larger institution should interfere with how people organize their relationships and their lives. On the positive end, they can sometimes protect rights and regulate how things will be run in certain contingencies according to the individuals wishes, etc. For me, I prefer an organization that all people participate in and have at least the slightest level of control in and say in, such as a state or federal government, over a religious institution or set of institutions having exclusive power over something that they have not always had exclusive power over and that the nonreligious are also interested in. (Obviously, I think the government having power over things it didn't used to have power over is a valid concern)

[BBM]

To me, a marriage has no gender connotations to it. When I think of a marriage, I think of an institution designed for people who wish to spend their lives together (for whatever reason that might be) to declare that attachment publicly. And the idea that marriage, even if it might originally have started as such (Did it? I don't know.), is currently an institution of the church is ludicrous. Heterosexual couples have been able to marry each other and have it recognized as a marriage for a long time even when neither party was Christian.

[Celice]

Seeing marriage as purely a construct of the church is pretty provincial and small. Apparently, eastern marriages were never a thing--

[Snapdragon]

That reflects a more liberal government rather than anything inherently wrong with civil unions.

Having to explain what civil Unions are, especially in really impractical times, like say when medical emergencies arise and then paperwork/forms sometimes not recognizing civil unions' existence , or at least not adequately, are the sort of things I'm talking about. So more like unfair in practice, even if written to be equal. Though apparently more companies also tend to use the loophole of ERISA when it's called a civil Union instead of marriage. I suppose it may be true that some of the differences in treatment is the result of the general opinion of constituents, and not the laws themselves. However, I can't imagine that constituents from States like New Jersey and Vermont are that different from Massachusetts. Of course, I live in none of these States, so feel free to correct my assumptions. Either way, though, civil unions still arguably have the issue of stigmatizing a group of people by singling them out for no good reason.

Gay marriages are in the same position, though. If anthing the position of gay marriage is worse.

I suppose this is true until either same-sex marriage or civil unions become federally recognized. However, if it's not too much trouble, what do you mean when you say the position of gay marriage is worse?

For the record, though, I'm all for civil unions if everyone gets them. It's just easier to expand the "traditional" definition of marriage, than to revamp the entire system.

And the idea that marriage, even if it might originally have started as such (Did it? I don't know.), is currently an institution of the church is ludicrous.

It may have been but marriage predates at least Christianity. If I remember correctly, ancient Egypt had some form of it and they also were, possibly, the first to have monotheism so marriage may very well predate all one-god religions. Modern religions, don't really have any more right to define the word than anybody else, especially since it's very definition has changed throughout time and from one culture to the next.

[Rewjeo]

It may have been but marriage predates at least Christianity. If I remember correctly, ancient Egypt had some form of it and they also were, possibly, the first to have monotheism so marriage may very well predate all one-god religions. Modern religions, don't really have any more right to define the word than anybody else, especially since it's very definition has changed throughout time and from one culture to the next.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only time Egypt embraced monotheism until Rome took them over was when Akenaten (or whatever) tried to convert everyone to just believing in the sun god, and it failed miserably. Along with basically everything he tried that was new.

The "Christian" definition of marriage is really hard to define, anyways. My family's church (generally speaking) supports gay marriage. That kinda goes against other churches' views.

[Anouleth]

Given my religious background, I am opposed to gay marriage. Based on the definition of marriage.

Which definition? The Muslim definition? The Mormon definition? The Lutheran definition?

EDIT: If we're going to talk separation of church and state, we could at least try using terms that clearly separate the two. Right now a lot of the trouble is based on state appropriating a church word for something the church apparently didn't intend it for.

The problem is that different churchs have different approaches to marriage. There is no "one" religious definition of marriage. Some churchs, like Lutherans and Anglicans even permit gay marriage. Don't you think it infringes on their right to religious liberty to refuse to recognise those marriages?

[Snapdragon]

Unless I'm mistaken, the only time Egypt embraced monotheism until Rome took them over was when Akenaten (or whatever) tried to convert everyone to just believing in the sun god, and it failed miserably. Along with basically everything he tried that was new.

The "Christian" definition of marriage is really hard to define, anyways. My family's church (generally speaking) supports gay marriage. That kinda goes against other churches' views.

That's the one I was talking about. It wasn't very successful in the long run since once the Pharoah died everyone was all "eh, whatever, he was a shitty Pharaoh. Let's go back to the old gods." My point was more for the sake of comparing how old marriage is compared to religions, than for anything else. : /

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I'm no American but don't anyone think the Electoral College system gotta go? (Though I don't know if its still controversial)

Edited May 25, 2012 by Wáng Yuánjī

[Psych]

That deals with how we elect our president. This issue is dealt with separately on a state by state case.

[Rehab]

While that's a different topic for us, there are of course people in America who think the electoral college is flawed, exemplified in (rare) occasions like the 2000 election where the popular vote did not get Gore the presidency. My mother, I believe, is one of those. As far as I know, though, there's not nearly enough political will to challenge it at the moment, especially given everything else that's going on. I might guess it'd be less likely to get an amendment any time soon than the whole gay marriage thing, though I wouldn't have much real data on hand to back that up.

Aside from overall polls on gay marriage seeming to trend in its favor recently, anyway.

[1st Mate Bob]

^I believe Obama stated that he will work to repeal DOMA if he's reelected. So that's a step in the right direction, at least.